<p><strong>OBJECTIVE: </strong>To evaluate COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among health care personnel (HCP) with significant clinical exposure to COVID-19 at two large, academic hospitals in Philadelphia.</p>

<p><strong>DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: </strong>HCP were surveyed between November-December 2020 about their intention to receive the COVID-19 vaccine.</p>

<p><strong>METHODS: </strong>The survey measured the intent among HCP to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, timing of vaccination, and reasons for or against vaccination. Among patient-facing HCP, multivariate regression evaluated the associations between healthcare positions (MD, NP/PA, RN) and vaccine hesitancy (intending to decline, delay, or were unsure about vaccination), adjusting for demographic characteristics, reasons why or why not to receive the vaccine, and prior receipt of routine vaccines.</p>

<p><strong>RESULTS: </strong>Among 5,929 HCP (2,253 MDs/DOs, 582 NPs, 158 PAs, and 2,936 nurses), a higher proportion of nurses (47.3%) were COVID-vaccine hesitant compared with 30.0% of PAs/NPs and 13.1% of MDs/DOs. The most common reasons for vaccine hesitancy included concerns about side effects, the newness of the vaccines, and lack of vaccine knowledge. Regardless of position, Black HCP were more hesitant than White HCP (OR∼5) and females were more hesitant than males (OR∼2).</p>

<p><strong>CONCLUSION: </strong>Although a majority of clinical HCP intended to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, intention varied by healthcare position. Consistent with other studies, hesitancy was also significantly associated with race/ethnicity across all positions. These results underline the importance of understanding and effectively addressing reasons for hesitancy, especially among frontline HCP who are at increased risk of COVID exposure and play a critical role in recommending vaccines to patients.</p>

<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Significant differences in hesitancy to receive COVID-19 vaccination by race/ethnicity have been observed in several settings. Racial/ethnic differences in COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among health care workers (HCWs), who face occupational and community exposure to COVID-19, have not been well described.</p>

<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess hesitancy to COVID-19 vaccination among HCWs across different racial/ethnic groups and assess factors associated with vaccine hesitancy.</p>

<p><strong>Design, Setting, and Participants: </strong>This survey study was conducted among HCWs from 2 large academic hospitals (ie, a children's hospital and an adult hospital) over a 3-week period in November and December 2020. Eligible participants were HCWs with and without direct patient contact. A 3-step hierarchical multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate associations between race/ethnicity and vaccine hesitancy controlling for demographic characteristics, employment characteristics, COVID-19 exposure risk, and being up to date with routine vaccinations. Data were analyzed from February through March 2021.</p>

<p><strong>Main Outcomes and Measures: </strong>Vaccine hesitancy, defined as not planning on, being unsure about, or planning to delay vaccination, served as the outcome.</p>

<p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 34 865 HCWs eligible for this study, 12 034 individuals (34.5%) completed the survey and 10 871 individuals (32.2%) completed the survey and reported their race/ethnicity. Among 10 866 of these HCWs with data on sex, 8362 individuals (76.9%) were women, and among 10 833 HCWs with age data, 5923 individuals (54.5%) were younger than age 40 years. (Percentages for demographic and clinical characteristics are among the number of respondents for each type of question.) There were 8388 White individuals (77.2%), 882 Black individuals (8.1%), 845 Asian individuals (7.8%), and 449 individuals with other or mixed race/ethnicity (4.1%), and there were 307 Hispanic or Latino individuals (2.8%). Vaccine hesitancy was highest among Black HCWs (732 individuals [83.0%]) and Hispanic or Latino HCWs (195 individuals [63.5%]) (P &lt; .001). Among 5440 HCWs with vaccine hesitancy, reasons given for hesitancy included concerns about side effects (4737 individuals [87.1%]), newness of the vaccine (4306 individuals [79.2%]), and lack of vaccine knowledge (4091 individuals [75.2%]). The adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for vaccine hesitancy was 4.98 (95% CI, 4.11-6.03) among Black HCWs, 2.10 (95% CI, 1.63-2.70) among Hispanic or Latino HCWs, 1.48 (95% CI, 1.21-1.82) among HCWs with other or mixed race/ethnicity, and 1.47 (95% CI, 1.26-1.71) among Asian HCWs compared with White HCWs (P &lt; .001). The aOR was decreased among Black HCWs when adjusting for employment characteristics and COVID-19 exposure risk (aOR, 4.87; 95% CI, 3.96-6.00; P &lt; .001) and being up to date with prior vaccines (aOR, 4.48; 95% CI, 3.62-5.53; P &lt; .001) but not among HCWs with other racial/ethnic backgrounds.</p>

<p><strong>Conclusions and Relevance: </strong>This study found that vaccine hesitancy before the authorization of the COVID-19 vaccine was increased among Black, Hispanic or Latino, and Asian HCWs compared with White HCWs. These findings suggest that interventions focused on addressing vaccine hesitancy among HCWs are needed.</p>

<p><strong>BACKGROUND: </strong>Health care personnel have been identified by the ACIP as a priority group for COVID-19 vaccination. We conducted a survey in November-December 2020 at two large, academic hospitals in Philadelphia to evaluate the intention of hospital employees to be vaccinated.</p>

<p><strong>METHODS: </strong>The survey was sent electronically to all employees (clinical and nonclinical staff) at a children's hospital and an adult hospital. The survey was voluntary and confidential. Questions focused on plans to receive a COVID-19 vaccine when available, reasons why employees would/would not get vaccinated, when employees planned to be vaccinated, vaccine safety and efficacy features that would be acceptable, and past history of receipt of other vaccines by the employee and family. Responses were analyzed using univariate and multiple logistic regression methods.</p>

<p><strong>RESULTS: </strong>A total of 12,034 hospital employees completed the survey (a 34.5% response rate). Overall, 63.7% of employees reported that they planned to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, 26.3% were unsure, and 10.0% did not plan to be vaccinated. Over 80% of those unsure or unwilling to be vaccinated expressed concerns about vaccine side effects and the vaccines' newness. In multivariable logistic regression, persons planning to take a COVID-19 vaccine were more likely to be older, male, more educated, Asian or White, up-to-date on vaccinations, without direct patient contact, and tested for COVID-19 in the past. No significant difference in intention to be vaccinated was found between those with higher versus lower levels of exposure to COVID-19 patients or the number of previous exposures to patients with COVID-19.</p>

<p><strong>CONCLUSIONS: </strong>While the majority of hospital employees are planning to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, many are unsure or not planning to do so. Further education of hospital employees about the safety, efficacy, and value of the currently available COVID-19 vaccines is critical to vaccine acceptance in this population.</p>

<p><strong>BACKGROUND: </strong>Influenza vaccination of healthcare workers (HCWs) has been recommended for more than 30 years. In 2009, HCWs were designated as a priority group by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Current HCW vaccination rates are 78% across all settings and reach approximately 92% among those employed in hospital settings. Over the last decade, it has become clear that mandatory vaccine policies result in maximal rates of HCW immunization.</p>

<p><strong>METHODS: </strong>In this observational 10-year study, we describe the implementation of a mandatory influenza vaccination policy in a dedicated quaternary pediatric hospital setting by a multidisciplinary team. We analyzed 10 years of available data from deidentified occupational health records from 2009-2010 through the 2018-2019 influenza seasons. Descriptive statistics were performed using Stata v15 and Excel.</p>

<p><strong>RESULTS: </strong>Sustained increases in HCW immunization rates above 99% were observed in the 10 years postimplementation, in addition to a reduction in exemption requests and healthcare-associated influenza. In the year of implementation, 145 (1.6%) HCWs were placed on temporary suspension for failure to receive the vaccine without documentation of an exemption, with 9 (0.06%) subsequently being terminated. Since then, between 0 and 3 HCWs are terminated yearly for failure to receive the vaccine.</p>

<p><strong>CONCLUSIONS: </strong>Implementation of our mandatory influenza vaccination program succeeded in successfully increasing the proportion of immunized HCWs at a quaternary care children's hospital, reducing annual exemption requests with a small number of terminations secondary to vaccine refusal. Temporal trends suggest a positive impact on the safety of our patients.</p>

<p>Recently, efforts have been made to fill a so-called "vaccine gap" between Japan and other countries; however, more work remains. Concerns about adverse events following immunization (AEFI) resulted in an historically passive approach to policy making in the National Immunization Program (NIP). For example, reports of AEFI following human papillomavirus vaccine (HPVV) in 2013 led the Japanese government to withdraw its proactive recommendations, resulting in a sharp drop in HPVV coverage rate to less than 1.0%. In this report, we review key historical incidents that led to the current immunization system in Japan, compare it to that in the United States, and discuss strategies for improving the Japanese immunization system. By strengthening existing policies and programs, such as National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups and AEFI reporting, compensation laws, and immunization education, the remaining vaccine gap in Japan could be filled.</p>

<p><strong>INTRODUCTION: </strong>Japan has experienced extremely low human papillomavirus vaccine (HPVV) coverage following the suspension of proactive governmental recommendations in 2013. Several studies have reported that recommendations from physicians increase adolescents' vaccine acceptance. In this survey, we evaluated the attitudes and intentions of Japanese physicians related to adolescent immunizations, particularly HPVV.</p>

<p><strong>METHODS: </strong>We conducted a cross-sectional study using a mailed questionnaire targeting 330 Japanese physicians including 78 pediatricians, 225 internists and 27 obstetricians and gynecologists (OB/GYNs) in Kawasaki City, Japan in 2016. The survey measured physicians' reported frequency of educating adolescents about vaccines as well as their own perceptions and intentions related to adolescent immunizations.</p>

<p><strong>RESULTS: </strong>Valid responses were obtained from 148 (45%) physicians. Though 53% agreed that the HPVV should be recommended, only 21% reported educating about HPVV. The majority of respondents (90%) agreed that they would restart HPVV for adolescents if the government reinstated its recommendation.</p>

<p><strong>CONCLUSIONS: </strong>Although Japanese physicians reported support for adolescent immunizations, they were less likely to recommend or discuss HPVV compared with other adolescent vaccines. Responses indicated this was, at least in part, due to the lack of governmental support for HPVV, indicating that their recommendations would improve with government endorsement of the vaccine.</p>

<p>Although juvenile-onset recurrent respiratory papillomatosis (JoRRP) generally involves a benign tumor on the larynx and other respiratory tract areas, almost all patients with this disease require repeated surgical intervention (to prevent airway obstruction during the course of illness) and various adjuvant therapies such as interferon, cidofovir, acyclovir, ribavirin, indole-3-carbinol, HspE7, mumps vaccine, photodynamic therapy, propranolol, cimetidine, and bevacizumab. Some case reports recently described the effectiveness of the quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine (HPV4) as an adjuvant therapy. On the basis of these reports, we administered HPV4 to a 2-year-old boy with JoRRP. However, no therapeutic effect was found. A review of the available literature revealed that current evidence for the effectiveness of therapeutic HPV4 and other adjuvant therapies for JoRRP is inconsistent. Therefore, the prophylactic use of currently available HPV vaccine for adolescents is the most effective strategy for preventing not only anogenital cancers but also genital warts, which might be a risk factor for JoRRP among their children in the future.</p>